Who Built The Stones?

Current topics

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby Boreades » 3:38 pm

Did we ever find a convincing reason for the similar names?

Carnac in Brittany.
Karnak in Egypt.
Boreades
 
Posts: 1995
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby Mick Harper » 9:00 am

Well, somebody once wrote
in Breton Karn Barnenez; in French: Cairn de Barnenez or Tumulus de Barnenez) is a Neolithic monument

1. Since Neolithic is going ever backwards in time (let's say currently 3500 BC), and all the Egyptian stuff is coming forward in time (let's say, currently 2,500 BC we can assume Carnac comes before Karnak.
2. Since they both feature (sort of) stone tumuli we can assume the coincidence is not coincidental.
3. There is no known etymological, historical or archaeological link between the two.
4. Therefore there is some unknown etymological, historical or archaeological link between the two.
5. The causal link must be carnac ---> karnac on chronological grounds
6. Carn = corn(wall) = horn = something we haven't quite established yet.
7. If we can work out what karnak means (unimportant) we can establish what carnac means (important)
Mick Harper
 
Posts: 861
Joined: 10:28 am

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby TisILeclerc » 12:26 pm

Read all abaht it, read all abaht it.

The Grauniad has announced the invasion of Britain. The Saxon one that is. Was a couple of thousand years earlier than first thought.

Dutch hordes in clogs carrying rotten hareng and cheese wiped out the Stonehenge builders. Which explains why they never got the roof on.

All you get from the EU is genocide. Good job we will be free and we can go round in our own circles and get the roofs on this time.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... nt-britons

This startling conclusion is the result of a huge gene study of humans in prehistoric Europe. It shows that around 2500BC – when the main sections of Stonehenge were under construction – a race of people known to archaeologists as the Beaker folk arrived in Britain. Their genetic profiles were similar to individuals who were living in the Netherlands at the time. In just a short period, all genetic traces of early Stone Age Britons were replaced by those from these continental newcomers, although work on Stonehenge continued.

“It is very striking. There seems to have been a complete replacement of the original folk of Britain with these newcomers,” said Garrett Hellenthal, a statistical geneticist based at University College London. “Normally you get some older DNA surviving with a wave of immigrants, even a fairly large wave. But you don’t see that in this case. Frankly it looks more like an invasion.”

The arrival and spread of the Beaker folk is one of the most intriguing puzzles of European prehistory. These people made complex, very distinctive ornaments in silver and gold and constructed distinctive bell-shaped pots or beakers from which they get their name.


http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962

http://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/05/10/the-bron ... -britiain/
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 11:40 am

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby hvered » 6:02 pm

A fellow-enthusiast has sent a link to an article by an Australian doctor (in both senses) on Tisi's Beaker invasion
https://cosmosmagazine.com/archaeology/ ... ish-genome

A team led by David Reich, a geneticist at the Harvard Medical School in the US, has found the genetic make-up of early Britons underwent a near complete renewal in the space of just a few hundred years following 2500 BCE. That demographic upheaval, the authors write, resulted from a wave of continental migration that ultimately contributed to the paler skin and eyes we now associate with the average Brit.

That's quite topical because it's been 'suggested' that Cheddar Man (lived c. 10,000 years ago?) was dark-skinned but startlingly blue-eyed according to a documentary on Channel 4. The reconstruction of his skull was superbly done though some of the geneticists' conclusions may have been a little sketchy.

“[T]he spread of the Beaker complex introduced high levels of steppe-related ancestry and was associated with the replacement of approximately 90% of Britain’s gene pool,” the authors write.

That's what they used to say about the Anglo-Saxon invasion until the claim was disproved. 'Introduced', 'high levels', 'associated with' and 'approximately' are standard sleights of hand. It isn't clear what 'steppe-related' refers to. Is it replacing Caucasian? Are we all Mongols?
hvered
 
Posts: 847
Joined: 10:22 pm

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby TisILeclerc » 11:04 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43115485

The beeb has got on to it now. They blame climate change for it. Can't keep a good joke down.

The reasons remain unclear, but climate change, disease and ecological disaster could all have played a role.


The genetic data, from hundreds of ancient British genomes, reveals that the Beakers were a distinct population from the Neolithic British. After their arrival on the island, Beaker genes appear to swamp those of the native farmers.

Prof Reich added: "The previous inhabitants had just put up the big stones at Stonehenge, which became a national place of pilgrimage as reflected by goods brought from the far corners of Britain."


As ever they don't tell us what these genomes are or how they differ from any other genome. Are they worried about getting into a 'racist/racial' debate?

And as for the natives being swamped, oh dear. Not PC really.

'The previous inhabitants had just put up the big stones at Stonehenge...' Sounds like the Hitch Hiker's Guide. I suppose the worthy natives had just put the last touch of paint on when the Vogons arrived and said that's got to come down.

The idea that for a few thousand years there were massive structures built by a very sophisticated and skilled people doesn't seem to come into it.

The newcomers brought ancestry from nomadic groups originating on the Pontic Steppe, a grassland region extending from Ukraine to Kazakhstan. These nomads moved west during the Neolithic, mixing heavily with established populations in Europe. The Beaker migration marks the first time this eastern genetic signature appears in Britain


And which eastern genetic signature was that? Again they avoid the obvious questions.

Archaeologist and study co-author Mike Parker Pearson, from University College London (UCL), said Neolithic Britons and Beaker groups organised their societies in very different ways. The construction of massive stone monuments, co-opting hundreds of people, was an alien concept to Beakers, but the Neolithic British community "has that absolutely as its core rationale"

This makes it sound like the British were Stalinist centralisers turning the population into forced labourers. Ha, we had the gulags first. Unlike the hippies with their little ponies coming across from the Pontic Steppe, who didn't believe in work. They just wanted an easy life and benefits no doubt.

"[The Beaker people] are not prepared to collaborate on enormous labour-mobilising projects; their society is more de-centralised," said Prof Parker Pearson. "We don't have a good expression for it, but the Americans do, and that is: nobody is willing to work for 'The Man'."


Or perhaps nobody was willing to work.

Anyway the article covers Brexit, stone age Britain had cut itself off from Europe. Then the climate took a nosedive and the British weaklings couldn't cope with the cold. Not only that, as the population was dwindling they managed to exhaust the land so crops were difficult to grow. Obviously the Bell Beaker people were the eagerly aniticpated group to take over and revitalise the country because the natives were incapable.

One thing they mention is that the incomers brought diseases with them like the plague. This further helped to bump the locals off. Now where have I heard of that sort of thing before?

Another intriguing possibility links the Beaker people with the spread of Celtic languages. Although many linguistics experts believe Celtic spread thousands of years later, Dr Lalueza-Fox said: "In my view, the massive population turnover must be accompanied by a language replacement."


So, it seems that it is largely based on opinion, intriguing possibilities and so on. And still no detailed information on what the dna actually was and how it differs from 'normal' British dna.
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 11:40 am

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby Boreades » 12:23 pm

It's a load of balls!

This
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1620 ... lptors-cv/
says

Author and amateur historian Jeff Nisbet said that the time and care lavished over the stones may mean they are a sort of 'apprentice piece' created by neolithic stone masons to show off their skill. The Scottish-American writer, who was born in Edinburgh before emigrating to the US aged 11, says that the stones could have been a way for ancient builders to demonstrate how they had mastered their trade, much in the way portfolios work today.


Sounds good to me. Old-fashioned craft apprentices used to have to make something special as their final party-piece to qualify. Which would suggest that Orkney was (in part at least) a megalithic technical training college of some sort?

Nice 3D models here:
https://sketchfab.com/nationalmuseumsscotland/models
Boreades
 
Posts: 1995
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby Mick Harper » 1:44 pm

This was first put forward by me (as far as I know) on the grounds that the buildings were so obviously halls of residence --identical, each with twin beds and a desk. I admit though I didn't spot the party-piece angle. Nor do I now since 'student stuff' is shoved in the bin after, not used to adorn the campus for evermore. The students though were using the stones as part of their course work.
Mick Harper
 
Posts: 861
Joined: 10:28 am

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby hvered » 8:01 pm

Identical places of residence are also known as housing estates. Presumably the people who actually knew what they were doing had to be housed.
hvered
 
Posts: 847
Joined: 10:22 pm

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby Mick Harper » 8:13 pm

No, people who know what they are doing demand individualised housing to reflect their status. Though it may be that the Mesolithic cramped their style. You just can't get the stone.
Mick Harper
 
Posts: 861
Joined: 10:28 am

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby Boreades » 11:45 pm

Mick Harper wrote: 'student stuff' is shoved in the bin after, not used to adorn the campus for evermore.


Shirley you mean the tatty less-than-average student stuff is shoved in the bin, ready for the archeos to dig up and have orgasms over however many thousands years later?

Which begs the questions: if we are just finding the tatty sub-standard stuff, not worth keeping or protecting, how much better was the really good stuff? And where is it?
Boreades
 
Posts: 1995
Joined: 2:35 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Index

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest